"Despite subsequently finding out that they had been misled, many voted in good faith."
So you keep saying , and come 23rd May , people will turn out again , in what has become effectively another affirmation of that original vote, in the guise of the european elections . Once again , the tide of public opinion will be on the leave side .
How are you going to work that out then?
Another unanswered question.
Yet another uninformed silly post.
The results of the EU Elections will be published.
The number of votes cast for each party will be calculated.
How do you calculate from the votes cast, in which way the tide of public opinion is moving?
Some of the parties are clearly in favour of one side or the other.
The Brexit Party is clearly in favour of leaving.
The Lib Dems, SNP, Greens, Change UK, Plaid Cymru, etc, are clearly in favour of remaining.
Yet any votes cast for the Tories, or Labour, could be in favour of either side.
What about the 10million of the electorate that didn't vote in the referendum.
How do you factor them in?
How many of them will vote?
How can you tell who they are, or whether they have voted?
Perhaps you could explain how you intend to judge this tide of public opinion?
If we follow that logic, we could of vote every 15 minutes just to check the will of the people is still the will of the people.
Bit of a difference between 15 mins and 3 years mumsie. If you can honestly tell me that the info the people had in 2016 and now is the same then I wouldnt argue with you.
This from the Guardian , addresses it more eloquently than my tired mind will allow tonight :
For the House of Commons to endorse a second referendum, it would have to repeal past Brexit legislation in a manner that flouts the position adopted by the main parties in the last general election. Were this to happen, it would tear up established relations between executive and legislature, pitting popular and parliamentary sovereignty against one another. Parliament would in effect be seeking, in a Brechtian fashion, to dissolve “the people” and put another in place that will vote differently in a second referendum. Why should it not be possible to change one’s mind in a democracy? Of course it should be, but calls for a second referendum have very little to do with a changing of minds and more to do with a hardening of views. What lies behind the call for another vote is a belief that those who voted to leave in June 2016 should change their minds. The fact that its supporters call it “the people’s vote”, as if the first vote wasn’t, lets the cat out of the bag. Driving the desire to have a second vote is a firm belief that the first one was an illegitimate act, a subversion of democratic politics that saw a leave victory achieved through a mix of lies and misconceptions. This is what the second referendum campaigners hang their arguments on, so it merits some scrutiny. At the heart of it is an epistemic claim: people did not understand what was at stake and now that they do, we should give them a chance to vote differently. Instead of basing our political system on two fundamental principles – equal political rights (for those over 18) and majority rule – this claim introduces a new element, knowledge. It presumes that people who voted leave first time around were ignorant or misguided, or both. It also suggests that one’s right to act politically rests in part upon one’s ability to be informed about the issues in question.
Who can determine whether people are well enough informed to allow a result to pass? Do advocates of this kind of knowledge-based democracy accept that access to knowledge is fundamentally shaped by social and economic power? Thus organised, we divide our political world into those who know and those who do not. Or, more truthfully, between those who are sure that they know and those who are not so sure. This is a subjective difference, requiring an arbiter to draw the line. As things stand, the only arbiters at present are MPs themselves, who we know are made up predominantly of remainers. Would we instead create an independent body, made up of the great and the good, empowered to decide on the cognitive capacities of voters? I imagine not, but the elitism underpinning arguments for a second referendum couldn’t be clearer. A second referendum would be a blow to the heart of our parliamentary democracy. It would introduce the principle – elitist to the core – that the legitimacy of a political decision rests upon a judgment about the knowledge that informed it. And it would rely on a dirty plebiscitarianism as a way out of the political impasse in Westminster. Those arguing for a second referendum should be careful what they wish for. Chaos is rarely a harbinger of good outcomes
I am confused by the fact that you have posted this. You stated very clearly, much earlier in this thread that the misleading claims made in the referendum campaign, left you unable to vote. Now you post an article claiming that everyone knew what they were doing. You cant have it both ways. As I have said a number of times previously, there are a number of Brexit varieties available. Three years later we still don't know which one we will end up with. Leave voters that support a Common Market 2.0 solution, will be hostile to a no deal outcome.
As the result has not been decided, how could any leave voter claim that they knew what they were voting for?
Please knock yourself out and show me where I typed the bolded bit .
Secondly , you can twist the words of the article as much you like , but rational people will read it and form their own conclusions . You pretty much found your level when you decided to post a succession of crude , immature pe nis pictures , so why anyone would take anything you have to say as being considered is beyond me .
As I am sure you consider yourself a rational person, what are your conclusions?
You should probably stay away from guessing , I actually refrained from voting simply because whatever anyone said from either side , I wasn't sure how it would affect us . Please feel free to carry on with your assumptions !
Umm, where have I suggested that ?. I think you need to brush up on your reading skills . I have already confirmed that I didn't vote , because it was and still is impossible to say whether in the years to come , brexit will be a good or bad thing for our country . You are arrogant , because you are not prepared to hear opposing viewpoints to yours , without " shouting " them down and dismissing them as nonsense . I'm quite prepared to listen to both sides of the argument for Brexit , that is not evident on this thread and isn't likely to be !
The reason I didnt vote , was simply because I couldn't be sure of making the right decision , based on the arguments put forward from both sides ..i'd say that was the responsible thing to do !
I would suggest that you are slightly contradicting yourself. Perhaps you would like to clarify , are you happy for people to have had the vote regardless of spin , misinformation and lies from BOTH sides or do you back up the highlighted comment of yours at the top ?
Perfectly calm here , and i would suggest in future if you are genuinely asking a question , put a question mark after it ! If it is a question , I never said I didn't have views on Brexit , just that it is way too complicated an issue with too many variables to express a view and substantiate it . For those reasons , I would decline a 2nd vote as well ( not that imo that will ever happen anyway ).
You can't stand by both of your statements , it's contradictory ! Completely laughable . As far as not having any sympathy with people exercising their democratic right to abstain from voting , for **** good reasons is bizarre . No one knew exactly what sort of deal was going to be brokered , it's akin to asking someone to form an opinion on the basis that several options are going to happen , but we can't guarantee which one .
I didn't give an explanation of democratic rights , I merely stated that it is a democratic right to choose not to vote . 72 % of the U.K. also followed suit .
Semantics regarding the fact that you weren't asked to specify which deal you got ..people were invited to vote , not knowing exactly what was going to be on the table , thats the cold hard truth of the matter .
As for the other part , once again , you are trying your level best to put words in my mouth ( seems to be your m.o. ) and failing .
If the vote had been in favour of no deal , you wouldn't even be saying the referendum shouldn't have been offered .
I will reply to this later, it makes absolutely no sense and supports my last post.
That was me not paying attention to what I was typing as opposed to anything else ..but well done for picking it up.
When someone makes the same point over and over like i have , and still someone wants to question its validity , either a) they are dense or b) just being argumentative for the sake of it ..choose your option .... ..the question was asked and different arguments and outcomes were put forward to enable voters to make an informed decision . The arguments and misrepresentation from BOTH sides made it impossible for me to make my mind up .
You are , and perhaps you would like to tell me , exactly how democratic a country we would have if we forced our people to vote , even if they weren't really sure what they were voting for , and how that would impact on life changing moments like the brexit vote . If we had compulsory voting , the leave vote would have been higher .
What I meant to type was " remain" .....if the vote had been remain , you wouldn't even be saying the referendum shouldn't be offered .
Makes no sense
If anyone who voted leave , knew at the time what sort of deal Theresa may was going to be offered and the realistic chance of there being a no deal , would they still have voted leave ? Obviously we won't get much if any of a response on here , because a) haysies attitude has frightened off the leave brigade from making any arguments and b) This is a poker forum , with quite a limited user base and not a political forum .
You mean invalid , because I didn't vote remain like you ? Invalid because I wasn't prepared to make a decision based on lies /misrepresentation and a lack of information ?
HAYSIE said:
» show previous quotes Another blunder. This refers to not voting in a General Election, rather than a referendum, where every vote counts.
I would like to say nice try, but it wasn't really.
For instance, Jeremy Paxman told the Radio Times, “the person who chooses not to vote – cannot even be bothered to write ‘none of the above’ on a ballot paper – disqualifies himself from passing any comment at all.” Not a blunder at all . It highlights not voting as a general principle whether its a general election or a referendum , makes no difference . Paxman devotee , explains a lot !
dobiesdraw said:
» show previous quotes Not a blunder at all . It highlights not voting as a general principle whether its a general election or a referendum , makes no difference . Paxman devotee , explains a lot ! Have you even read it. The writer is defending the right not to vote, using an example of a politician that has a substantial majority, and saying that under these circumstances one vote would make no difference. Ignoring the constituencies where very, very small majorities exist. I am not saying I agree with this because there are many cases of very large majorities being overturned. In a referendum every vote counts. It is impossible to not see the difference. The Paxman quote was in the article, and you posted it.
It's an extremely valid reason to not vote , if you can't make up your mind which is the right thing to do . Do you think people should vote if they are not clear in their own minds about the ramifications of voting a particular way ?
Not the case at all , you didn't have to be a rocket scientist pre brexit vote , to realise that if you voted leave , then you couldn't be sure what the exact deal was going to be , as if you voted remain , what the potential benefits to the country might be long term .
And therein lies one of the main issues , why it was difficult to cast an informed vote .
Full of questions , but don't want to answer any !
In the other, Dobiesdraw, who has better things to do than give her own opinions, doesn't appear to be sure, but is sure that Haysie is wrong. Our forum has its very own Jeremy Corbyn....
Everyone was expected to vote in the referendum using the knowledge that they had at the time.
The reason that there is an outcry from some quarters now, is because anyone that has paid attention to what has happened since, has a much greater knowledge now.
Mind numbingly stupid example . It was the responsibilty of politicians to present realistic scenarios and accurately represent consequences to the country pre vote . They failed to do that . If you are saying that wasn't possible , then the referendum should never have been offered up.
Totally disagree ...it would be and is irresponsible to vote uninformed about the consequences .
Your argument clearly points to the fact that nobody should have voted to leave?
If we follow that logic, we could of vote every 15 minutes just to check the will of the people is still the will of the people.
Bit of a difference between 15 mins and 3 years mumsie. If you can honestly tell me that the info the people had in 2016 and now is the same then I wouldnt argue with you.
This from the Guardian , addresses it more eloquently than my tired mind will allow tonight :
For the House of Commons to endorse a second referendum, it would have to repeal past Brexit legislation in a manner that flouts the position adopted by the main parties in the last general election. Were this to happen, it would tear up established relations between executive and legislature, pitting popular and parliamentary sovereignty against one another. Parliament would in effect be seeking, in a Brechtian fashion, to dissolve “the people” and put another in place that will vote differently in a second referendum. Why should it not be possible to change one’s mind in a democracy? Of course it should be, but calls for a second referendum have very little to do with a changing of minds and more to do with a hardening of views. What lies behind the call for another vote is a belief that those who voted to leave in June 2016 should change their minds. The fact that its supporters call it “the people’s vote”, as if the first vote wasn’t, lets the cat out of the bag. Driving the desire to have a second vote is a firm belief that the first one was an illegitimate act, a subversion of democratic politics that saw a leave victory achieved through a mix of lies and misconceptions. This is what the second referendum campaigners hang their arguments on, so it merits some scrutiny. At the heart of it is an epistemic claim: people did not understand what was at stake and now that they do, we should give them a chance to vote differently. Instead of basing our political system on two fundamental principles – equal political rights (for those over 18) and majority rule – this claim introduces a new element, knowledge. It presumes that people who voted leave first time around were ignorant or misguided, or both. It also suggests that one’s right to act politically rests in part upon one’s ability to be informed about the issues in question.
Who can determine whether people are well enough informed to allow a result to pass? Do advocates of this kind of knowledge-based democracy accept that access to knowledge is fundamentally shaped by social and economic power? Thus organised, we divide our political world into those who know and those who do not. Or, more truthfully, between those who are sure that they know and those who are not so sure. This is a subjective difference, requiring an arbiter to draw the line. As things stand, the only arbiters at present are MPs themselves, who we know are made up predominantly of remainers. Would we instead create an independent body, made up of the great and the good, empowered to decide on the cognitive capacities of voters? I imagine not, but the elitism underpinning arguments for a second referendum couldn’t be clearer. A second referendum would be a blow to the heart of our parliamentary democracy. It would introduce the principle – elitist to the core – that the legitimacy of a political decision rests upon a judgment about the knowledge that informed it. And it would rely on a dirty plebiscitarianism as a way out of the political impasse in Westminster. Those arguing for a second referendum should be careful what they wish for. Chaos is rarely a harbinger of good outcomes
I am confused by the fact that you have posted this. You stated very clearly, much earlier in this thread that the misleading claims made in the referendum campaign, left you unable to vote. Now you post an article claiming that everyone knew what they were doing. You cant have it both ways. As I have said a number of times previously, there are a number of Brexit varieties available. Three years later we still don't know which one we will end up with. Leave voters that support a Common Market 2.0 solution, will be hostile to a no deal outcome.
As the result has not been decided, how could any leave voter claim that they knew what they were voting for?
Please knock yourself out and show me where I typed the bolded bit .
Secondly , you can twist the words of the article as much you like , but rational people will read it and form their own conclusions . You pretty much found your level when you decided to post a succession of crude , immature pe nis pictures , so why anyone would take anything you have to say as being considered is beyond me .
As I am sure you consider yourself a rational person, what are your conclusions?
This is my conclusion and it hasn't changed from yesterday :
" You pretty much found your level when you decided to post a succession of crude , immature pe nis pictures , so why anyone would take anything you have to say as being considered is beyond me ."
If we follow that logic, we could of vote every 15 minutes just to check the will of the people is still the will of the people.
Bit of a difference between 15 mins and 3 years mumsie. If you can honestly tell me that the info the people had in 2016 and now is the same then I wouldnt argue with you.
This from the Guardian , addresses it more eloquently than my tired mind will allow tonight :
For the House of Commons to endorse a second referendum, it would have to repeal past Brexit legislation in a manner that flouts the position adopted by the main parties in the last general election. Were this to happen, it would tear up established relations between executive and legislature, pitting popular and parliamentary sovereignty against one another. Parliament would in effect be seeking, in a Brechtian fashion, to dissolve “the people” and put another in place that will vote differently in a second referendum. Why should it not be possible to change one’s mind in a democracy? Of course it should be, but calls for a second referendum have very little to do with a changing of minds and more to do with a hardening of views. What lies behind the call for another vote is a belief that those who voted to leave in June 2016 should change their minds. The fact that its supporters call it “the people’s vote”, as if the first vote wasn’t, lets the cat out of the bag. Driving the desire to have a second vote is a firm belief that the first one was an illegitimate act, a subversion of democratic politics that saw a leave victory achieved through a mix of lies and misconceptions. This is what the second referendum campaigners hang their arguments on, so it merits some scrutiny. At the heart of it is an epistemic claim: people did not understand what was at stake and now that they do, we should give them a chance to vote differently. Instead of basing our political system on two fundamental principles – equal political rights (for those over 18) and majority rule – this claim introduces a new element, knowledge. It presumes that people who voted leave first time around were ignorant or misguided, or both. It also suggests that one’s right to act politically rests in part upon one’s ability to be informed about the issues in question.
Who can determine whether people are well enough informed to allow a result to pass? Do advocates of this kind of knowledge-based democracy accept that access to knowledge is fundamentally shaped by social and economic power? Thus organised, we divide our political world into those who know and those who do not. Or, more truthfully, between those who are sure that they know and those who are not so sure. This is a subjective difference, requiring an arbiter to draw the line. As things stand, the only arbiters at present are MPs themselves, who we know are made up predominantly of remainers. Would we instead create an independent body, made up of the great and the good, empowered to decide on the cognitive capacities of voters? I imagine not, but the elitism underpinning arguments for a second referendum couldn’t be clearer. A second referendum would be a blow to the heart of our parliamentary democracy. It would introduce the principle – elitist to the core – that the legitimacy of a political decision rests upon a judgment about the knowledge that informed it. And it would rely on a dirty plebiscitarianism as a way out of the political impasse in Westminster. Those arguing for a second referendum should be careful what they wish for. Chaos is rarely a harbinger of good outcomes
I am confused by the fact that you have posted this. You stated very clearly, much earlier in this thread that the misleading claims made in the referendum campaign, left you unable to vote. Now you post an article claiming that everyone knew what they were doing. You cant have it both ways. As I have said a number of times previously, there are a number of Brexit varieties available. Three years later we still don't know which one we will end up with. Leave voters that support a Common Market 2.0 solution, will be hostile to a no deal outcome.
As the result has not been decided, how could any leave voter claim that they knew what they were voting for?
Please knock yourself out and show me where I typed the bolded bit .
Secondly , you can twist the words of the article as much you like , but rational people will read it and form their own conclusions . You pretty much found your level when you decided to post a succession of crude , immature pe nis pictures , so why anyone would take anything you have to say as being considered is beyond me .
As I am sure you consider yourself a rational person, what are your conclusions?
This is my conclusion and it hasn't changed from yesterday :
" You pretty much found your level when you decided to post a succession of crude , immature pe nis pictures , so why anyone would take anything you have to say as being considered is beyond me ."
Because @Haysie is providing a whole load of detail as to how your position has changed, and you are now deriding people who held your opinion.
You cannot argue on the facts, so you resort to smear tactics alone.
Having said all that, I DID think the particular posts were inappropriate. However, you trying to use that to deflect from the fact that you are being absolutely mullered is not going to work.
If we follow that logic, we could of vote every 15 minutes just to check the will of the people is still the will of the people.
Bit of a difference between 15 mins and 3 years mumsie. If you can honestly tell me that the info the people had in 2016 and now is the same then I wouldnt argue with you.
This from the Guardian , addresses it more eloquently than my tired mind will allow tonight :
For the House of Commons to endorse a second referendum, it would have to repeal past Brexit legislation in a manner that flouts the position adopted by the main parties in the last general election. Were this to happen, it would tear up established relations between executive and legislature, pitting popular and parliamentary sovereignty against one another. Parliament would in effect be seeking, in a Brechtian fashion, to dissolve “the people” and put another in place that will vote differently in a second referendum. Why should it not be possible to change one’s mind in a democracy? Of course it should be, but calls for a second referendum have very little to do with a changing of minds and more to do with a hardening of views. What lies behind the call for another vote is a belief that those who voted to leave in June 2016 should change their minds. The fact that its supporters call it “the people’s vote”, as if the first vote wasn’t, lets the cat out of the bag. Driving the desire to have a second vote is a firm belief that the first one was an illegitimate act, a subversion of democratic politics that saw a leave victory achieved through a mix of lies and misconceptions. This is what the second referendum campaigners hang their arguments on, so it merits some scrutiny. At the heart of it is an epistemic claim: people did not understand what was at stake and now that they do, we should give them a chance to vote differently. Instead of basing our political system on two fundamental principles – equal political rights (for those over 18) and majority rule – this claim introduces a new element, knowledge. It presumes that people who voted leave first time around were ignorant or misguided, or both. It also suggests that one’s right to act politically rests in part upon one’s ability to be informed about the issues in question.
Who can determine whether people are well enough informed to allow a result to pass? Do advocates of this kind of knowledge-based democracy accept that access to knowledge is fundamentally shaped by social and economic power? Thus organised, we divide our political world into those who know and those who do not. Or, more truthfully, between those who are sure that they know and those who are not so sure. This is a subjective difference, requiring an arbiter to draw the line. As things stand, the only arbiters at present are MPs themselves, who we know are made up predominantly of remainers. Would we instead create an independent body, made up of the great and the good, empowered to decide on the cognitive capacities of voters? I imagine not, but the elitism underpinning arguments for a second referendum couldn’t be clearer. A second referendum would be a blow to the heart of our parliamentary democracy. It would introduce the principle – elitist to the core – that the legitimacy of a political decision rests upon a judgment about the knowledge that informed it. And it would rely on a dirty plebiscitarianism as a way out of the political impasse in Westminster. Those arguing for a second referendum should be careful what they wish for. Chaos is rarely a harbinger of good outcomes
I am confused by the fact that you have posted this. You stated very clearly, much earlier in this thread that the misleading claims made in the referendum campaign, left you unable to vote. Now you post an article claiming that everyone knew what they were doing. You cant have it both ways. As I have said a number of times previously, there are a number of Brexit varieties available. Three years later we still don't know which one we will end up with. Leave voters that support a Common Market 2.0 solution, will be hostile to a no deal outcome.
As the result has not been decided, how could any leave voter claim that they knew what they were voting for?
Please knock yourself out and show me where I typed the bolded bit .
Secondly , you can twist the words of the article as much you like , but rational people will read it and form their own conclusions . You pretty much found your level when you decided to post a succession of crude , immature pe nis pictures , so why anyone would take anything you have to say as being considered is beyond me .
As I am sure you consider yourself a rational person, what are your conclusions?
This is my conclusion and it hasn't changed from yesterday :
" You pretty much found your level when you decided to post a succession of crude , immature pe nis pictures , so why anyone would take anything you have to say as being considered is beyond me ."
They clearly werent pictures.
Most people will see through your attempts at deflection.
If we follow that logic, we could of vote every 15 minutes just to check the will of the people is still the will of the people.
Bit of a difference between 15 mins and 3 years mumsie. If you can honestly tell me that the info the people had in 2016 and now is the same then I wouldnt argue with you.
This from the Guardian , addresses it more eloquently than my tired mind will allow tonight :
For the House of Commons to endorse a second referendum, it would have to repeal past Brexit legislation in a manner that flouts the position adopted by the main parties in the last general election. Were this to happen, it would tear up established relations between executive and legislature, pitting popular and parliamentary sovereignty against one another. Parliament would in effect be seeking, in a Brechtian fashion, to dissolve “the people” and put another in place that will vote differently in a second referendum. Why should it not be possible to change one’s mind in a democracy? Of course it should be, but calls for a second referendum have very little to do with a changing of minds and more to do with a hardening of views. What lies behind the call for another vote is a belief that those who voted to leave in June 2016 should change their minds. The fact that its supporters call it “the people’s vote”, as if the first vote wasn’t, lets the cat out of the bag. Driving the desire to have a second vote is a firm belief that the first one was an illegitimate act, a subversion of democratic politics that saw a leave victory achieved through a mix of lies and misconceptions. This is what the second referendum campaigners hang their arguments on, so it merits some scrutiny. At the heart of it is an epistemic claim: people did not understand what was at stake and now that they do, we should give them a chance to vote differently. Instead of basing our political system on two fundamental principles – equal political rights (for those over 18) and majority rule – this claim introduces a new element, knowledge. It presumes that people who voted leave first time around were ignorant or misguided, or both. It also suggests that one’s right to act politically rests in part upon one’s ability to be informed about the issues in question.
Who can determine whether people are well enough informed to allow a result to pass? Do advocates of this kind of knowledge-based democracy accept that access to knowledge is fundamentally shaped by social and economic power? Thus organised, we divide our political world into those who know and those who do not. Or, more truthfully, between those who are sure that they know and those who are not so sure. This is a subjective difference, requiring an arbiter to draw the line. As things stand, the only arbiters at present are MPs themselves, who we know are made up predominantly of remainers. Would we instead create an independent body, made up of the great and the good, empowered to decide on the cognitive capacities of voters? I imagine not, but the elitism underpinning arguments for a second referendum couldn’t be clearer. A second referendum would be a blow to the heart of our parliamentary democracy. It would introduce the principle – elitist to the core – that the legitimacy of a political decision rests upon a judgment about the knowledge that informed it. And it would rely on a dirty plebiscitarianism as a way out of the political impasse in Westminster. Those arguing for a second referendum should be careful what they wish for. Chaos is rarely a harbinger of good outcomes
I am confused by the fact that you have posted this. You stated very clearly, much earlier in this thread that the misleading claims made in the referendum campaign, left you unable to vote. Now you post an article claiming that everyone knew what they were doing. You cant have it both ways. As I have said a number of times previously, there are a number of Brexit varieties available. Three years later we still don't know which one we will end up with. Leave voters that support a Common Market 2.0 solution, will be hostile to a no deal outcome.
As the result has not been decided, how could any leave voter claim that they knew what they were voting for?
Please knock yourself out and show me where I typed the bolded bit .
Secondly , you can twist the words of the article as much you like , but rational people will read it and form their own conclusions . You pretty much found your level when you decided to post a succession of crude , immature pe nis pictures , so why anyone would take anything you have to say as being considered is beyond me .
As I am sure you consider yourself a rational person, what are your conclusions?
This is my conclusion and it hasn't changed from yesterday :
" You pretty much found your level when you decided to post a succession of crude , immature pe nis pictures , so why anyone would take anything you have to say as being considered is beyond me ."
They clearly werent pictures.
Most people will see through your attempts at deflection.
And the majority of people will see exactly what sort of person you are to post such items in the first instance !
If we follow that logic, we could of vote every 15 minutes just to check the will of the people is still the will of the people.
Bit of a difference between 15 mins and 3 years mumsie. If you can honestly tell me that the info the people had in 2016 and now is the same then I wouldnt argue with you.
This from the Guardian , addresses it more eloquently than my tired mind will allow tonight :
For the House of Commons to endorse a second referendum, it would have to repeal past Brexit legislation in a manner that flouts the position adopted by the main parties in the last general election. Were this to happen, it would tear up established relations between executive and legislature, pitting popular and parliamentary sovereignty against one another. Parliament would in effect be seeking, in a Brechtian fashion, to dissolve “the people” and put another in place that will vote differently in a second referendum. Why should it not be possible to change one’s mind in a democracy? Of course it should be, but calls for a second referendum have very little to do with a changing of minds and more to do with a hardening of views. What lies behind the call for another vote is a belief that those who voted to leave in June 2016 should change their minds. The fact that its supporters call it “the people’s vote”, as if the first vote wasn’t, lets the cat out of the bag. Driving the desire to have a second vote is a firm belief that the first one was an illegitimate act, a subversion of democratic politics that saw a leave victory achieved through a mix of lies and misconceptions. This is what the second referendum campaigners hang their arguments on, so it merits some scrutiny. At the heart of it is an epistemic claim: people did not understand what was at stake and now that they do, we should give them a chance to vote differently. Instead of basing our political system on two fundamental principles – equal political rights (for those over 18) and majority rule – this claim introduces a new element, knowledge. It presumes that people who voted leave first time around were ignorant or misguided, or both. It also suggests that one’s right to act politically rests in part upon one’s ability to be informed about the issues in question.
Who can determine whether people are well enough informed to allow a result to pass? Do advocates of this kind of knowledge-based democracy accept that access to knowledge is fundamentally shaped by social and economic power? Thus organised, we divide our political world into those who know and those who do not. Or, more truthfully, between those who are sure that they know and those who are not so sure. This is a subjective difference, requiring an arbiter to draw the line. As things stand, the only arbiters at present are MPs themselves, who we know are made up predominantly of remainers. Would we instead create an independent body, made up of the great and the good, empowered to decide on the cognitive capacities of voters? I imagine not, but the elitism underpinning arguments for a second referendum couldn’t be clearer. A second referendum would be a blow to the heart of our parliamentary democracy. It would introduce the principle – elitist to the core – that the legitimacy of a political decision rests upon a judgment about the knowledge that informed it. And it would rely on a dirty plebiscitarianism as a way out of the political impasse in Westminster. Those arguing for a second referendum should be careful what they wish for. Chaos is rarely a harbinger of good outcomes
I am confused by the fact that you have posted this. You stated very clearly, much earlier in this thread that the misleading claims made in the referendum campaign, left you unable to vote. Now you post an article claiming that everyone knew what they were doing. You cant have it both ways. As I have said a number of times previously, there are a number of Brexit varieties available. Three years later we still don't know which one we will end up with. Leave voters that support a Common Market 2.0 solution, will be hostile to a no deal outcome.
As the result has not been decided, how could any leave voter claim that they knew what they were voting for?
Please knock yourself out and show me where I typed the bolded bit .
Secondly , you can twist the words of the article as much you like , but rational people will read it and form their own conclusions . You pretty much found your level when you decided to post a succession of crude , immature pe nis pictures , so why anyone would take anything you have to say as being considered is beyond me .
As I am sure you consider yourself a rational person, what are your conclusions?
This is my conclusion and it hasn't changed from yesterday :
" You pretty much found your level when you decided to post a succession of crude , immature pe nis pictures , so why anyone would take anything you have to say as being considered is beyond me ."
Because @Haysie is providing a whole load of detail as to how your position has changed, and you are now deriding people who held your opinion.
You cannot argue on the facts, so you resort to smear tactics alone.
Having said all that, I DID think the particular posts were inappropriate. However, you trying to use that to deflect from the fact that you are being absolutely mullered is not going to work.
I'm more than capable of arguing on this subject , I choose not to with certain individuals such as Haysie . No smear tactics from me at all , nor will you find any inappropriate vulgar posts from me either .
If we follow that logic, we could of vote every 15 minutes just to check the will of the people is still the will of the people.
Bit of a difference between 15 mins and 3 years mumsie. If you can honestly tell me that the info the people had in 2016 and now is the same then I wouldnt argue with you.
This from the Guardian , addresses it more eloquently than my tired mind will allow tonight :
For the House of Commons to endorse a second referendum, it would have to repeal past Brexit legislation in a manner that flouts the position adopted by the main parties in the last general election. Were this to happen, it would tear up established relations between executive and legislature, pitting popular and parliamentary sovereignty against one another. Parliament would in effect be seeking, in a Brechtian fashion, to dissolve “the people” and put another in place that will vote differently in a second referendum. Why should it not be possible to change one’s mind in a democracy? Of course it should be, but calls for a second referendum have very little to do with a changing of minds and more to do with a hardening of views. What lies behind the call for another vote is a belief that those who voted to leave in June 2016 should change their minds. The fact that its supporters call it “the people’s vote”, as if the first vote wasn’t, lets the cat out of the bag. Driving the desire to have a second vote is a firm belief that the first one was an illegitimate act, a subversion of democratic politics that saw a leave victory achieved through a mix of lies and misconceptions. This is what the second referendum campaigners hang their arguments on, so it merits some scrutiny. At the heart of it is an epistemic claim: people did not understand what was at stake and now that they do, we should give them a chance to vote differently. Instead of basing our political system on two fundamental principles – equal political rights (for those over 18) and majority rule – this claim introduces a new element, knowledge. It presumes that people who voted leave first time around were ignorant or misguided, or both. It also suggests that one’s right to act politically rests in part upon one’s ability to be informed about the issues in question.
Who can determine whether people are well enough informed to allow a result to pass? Do advocates of this kind of knowledge-based democracy accept that access to knowledge is fundamentally shaped by social and economic power? Thus organised, we divide our political world into those who know and those who do not. Or, more truthfully, between those who are sure that they know and those who are not so sure. This is a subjective difference, requiring an arbiter to draw the line. As things stand, the only arbiters at present are MPs themselves, who we know are made up predominantly of remainers. Would we instead create an independent body, made up of the great and the good, empowered to decide on the cognitive capacities of voters? I imagine not, but the elitism underpinning arguments for a second referendum couldn’t be clearer. A second referendum would be a blow to the heart of our parliamentary democracy. It would introduce the principle – elitist to the core – that the legitimacy of a political decision rests upon a judgment about the knowledge that informed it. And it would rely on a dirty plebiscitarianism as a way out of the political impasse in Westminster. Those arguing for a second referendum should be careful what they wish for. Chaos is rarely a harbinger of good outcomes
I am confused by the fact that you have posted this. You stated very clearly, much earlier in this thread that the misleading claims made in the referendum campaign, left you unable to vote. Now you post an article claiming that everyone knew what they were doing. You cant have it both ways. As I have said a number of times previously, there are a number of Brexit varieties available. Three years later we still don't know which one we will end up with. Leave voters that support a Common Market 2.0 solution, will be hostile to a no deal outcome.
As the result has not been decided, how could any leave voter claim that they knew what they were voting for?
Please knock yourself out and show me where I typed the bolded bit .
Secondly , you can twist the words of the article as much you like , but rational people will read it and form their own conclusions . You pretty much found your level when you decided to post a succession of crude , immature pe nis pictures , so why anyone would take anything you have to say as being considered is beyond me .
As I am sure you consider yourself a rational person, what are your conclusions?
This is my conclusion and it hasn't changed from yesterday :
" You pretty much found your level when you decided to post a succession of crude , immature pe nis pictures , so why anyone would take anything you have to say as being considered is beyond me ."
Because @Haysie is providing a whole load of detail as to how your position has changed, and you are now deriding people who held your opinion.
You cannot argue on the facts, so you resort to smear tactics alone.
Having said all that, I DID think the particular posts were inappropriate. However, you trying to use that to deflect from the fact that you are being absolutely mullered is not going to work.
With regard to the defaced Brexit Party leaflets, I honestly didn't think too much about them. I just assumed that as they were published in a national newspaper, which may be purchased by children, they were ok to post. However I will happily apologise to anyone that was offended by them.
If we follow that logic, we could of vote every 15 minutes just to check the will of the people is still the will of the people.
Bit of a difference between 15 mins and 3 years mumsie. If you can honestly tell me that the info the people had in 2016 and now is the same then I wouldnt argue with you.
This from the Guardian , addresses it more eloquently than my tired mind will allow tonight :
For the House of Commons to endorse a second referendum, it would have to repeal past Brexit legislation in a manner that flouts the position adopted by the main parties in the last general election. Were this to happen, it would tear up established relations between executive and legislature, pitting popular and parliamentary sovereignty against one another. Parliament would in effect be seeking, in a Brechtian fashion, to dissolve “the people” and put another in place that will vote differently in a second referendum. Why should it not be possible to change one’s mind in a democracy? Of course it should be, but calls for a second referendum have very little to do with a changing of minds and more to do with a hardening of views. What lies behind the call for another vote is a belief that those who voted to leave in June 2016 should change their minds. The fact that its supporters call it “the people’s vote”, as if the first vote wasn’t, lets the cat out of the bag. Driving the desire to have a second vote is a firm belief that the first one was an illegitimate act, a subversion of democratic politics that saw a leave victory achieved through a mix of lies and misconceptions. This is what the second referendum campaigners hang their arguments on, so it merits some scrutiny. At the heart of it is an epistemic claim: people did not understand what was at stake and now that they do, we should give them a chance to vote differently. Instead of basing our political system on two fundamental principles – equal political rights (for those over 18) and majority rule – this claim introduces a new element, knowledge. It presumes that people who voted leave first time around were ignorant or misguided, or both. It also suggests that one’s right to act politically rests in part upon one’s ability to be informed about the issues in question.
Who can determine whether people are well enough informed to allow a result to pass? Do advocates of this kind of knowledge-based democracy accept that access to knowledge is fundamentally shaped by social and economic power? Thus organised, we divide our political world into those who know and those who do not. Or, more truthfully, between those who are sure that they know and those who are not so sure. This is a subjective difference, requiring an arbiter to draw the line. As things stand, the only arbiters at present are MPs themselves, who we know are made up predominantly of remainers. Would we instead create an independent body, made up of the great and the good, empowered to decide on the cognitive capacities of voters? I imagine not, but the elitism underpinning arguments for a second referendum couldn’t be clearer. A second referendum would be a blow to the heart of our parliamentary democracy. It would introduce the principle – elitist to the core – that the legitimacy of a political decision rests upon a judgment about the knowledge that informed it. And it would rely on a dirty plebiscitarianism as a way out of the political impasse in Westminster. Those arguing for a second referendum should be careful what they wish for. Chaos is rarely a harbinger of good outcomes
I am confused by the fact that you have posted this. You stated very clearly, much earlier in this thread that the misleading claims made in the referendum campaign, left you unable to vote. Now you post an article claiming that everyone knew what they were doing. You cant have it both ways. As I have said a number of times previously, there are a number of Brexit varieties available. Three years later we still don't know which one we will end up with. Leave voters that support a Common Market 2.0 solution, will be hostile to a no deal outcome.
As the result has not been decided, how could any leave voter claim that they knew what they were voting for?
Please knock yourself out and show me where I typed the bolded bit .
Secondly , you can twist the words of the article as much you like , but rational people will read it and form their own conclusions . You pretty much found your level when you decided to post a succession of crude , immature pe nis pictures , so why anyone would take anything you have to say as being considered is beyond me .
As I am sure you consider yourself a rational person, what are your conclusions?
This is my conclusion and it hasn't changed from yesterday :
" You pretty much found your level when you decided to post a succession of crude , immature pe nis pictures , so why anyone would take anything you have to say as being considered is beyond me ."
Because @Haysie is providing a whole load of detail as to how your position has changed, and you are now deriding people who held your opinion.
You cannot argue on the facts, so you resort to smear tactics alone.
Having said all that, I DID think the particular posts were inappropriate. However, you trying to use that to deflect from the fact that you are being absolutely mullered is not going to work.
With regard to the defaced Brexit Party leaflets, I honestly didn't think too much about them. I just assumed that as they were published in a national newspaper, which may be purchased by children, they were ok to post. However I will happily apologise to anyone that was offended by them.
As it happens they offend me ...but I really have no interest in a half baked apology from you ...do the right thing and delete them !
If we follow that logic, we could of vote every 15 minutes just to check the will of the people is still the will of the people.
Bit of a difference between 15 mins and 3 years mumsie. If you can honestly tell me that the info the people had in 2016 and now is the same then I wouldnt argue with you.
This from the Guardian , addresses it more eloquently than my tired mind will allow tonight :
For the House of Commons to endorse a second referendum, it would have to repeal past Brexit legislation in a manner that flouts the position adopted by the main parties in the last general election. Were this to happen, it would tear up established relations between executive and legislature, pitting popular and parliamentary sovereignty against one another. Parliament would in effect be seeking, in a Brechtian fashion, to dissolve “the people” and put another in place that will vote differently in a second referendum. Why should it not be possible to change one’s mind in a democracy? Of course it should be, but calls for a second referendum have very little to do with a changing of minds and more to do with a hardening of views. What lies behind the call for another vote is a belief that those who voted to leave in June 2016 should change their minds. The fact that its supporters call it “the people’s vote”, as if the first vote wasn’t, lets the cat out of the bag. Driving the desire to have a second vote is a firm belief that the first one was an illegitimate act, a subversion of democratic politics that saw a leave victory achieved through a mix of lies and misconceptions. This is what the second referendum campaigners hang their arguments on, so it merits some scrutiny. At the heart of it is an epistemic claim: people did not understand what was at stake and now that they do, we should give them a chance to vote differently. Instead of basing our political system on two fundamental principles – equal political rights (for those over 18) and majority rule – this claim introduces a new element, knowledge. It presumes that people who voted leave first time around were ignorant or misguided, or both. It also suggests that one’s right to act politically rests in part upon one’s ability to be informed about the issues in question.
Who can determine whether people are well enough informed to allow a result to pass? Do advocates of this kind of knowledge-based democracy accept that access to knowledge is fundamentally shaped by social and economic power? Thus organised, we divide our political world into those who know and those who do not. Or, more truthfully, between those who are sure that they know and those who are not so sure. This is a subjective difference, requiring an arbiter to draw the line. As things stand, the only arbiters at present are MPs themselves, who we know are made up predominantly of remainers. Would we instead create an independent body, made up of the great and the good, empowered to decide on the cognitive capacities of voters? I imagine not, but the elitism underpinning arguments for a second referendum couldn’t be clearer. A second referendum would be a blow to the heart of our parliamentary democracy. It would introduce the principle – elitist to the core – that the legitimacy of a political decision rests upon a judgment about the knowledge that informed it. And it would rely on a dirty plebiscitarianism as a way out of the political impasse in Westminster. Those arguing for a second referendum should be careful what they wish for. Chaos is rarely a harbinger of good outcomes
I am confused by the fact that you have posted this. You stated very clearly, much earlier in this thread that the misleading claims made in the referendum campaign, left you unable to vote. Now you post an article claiming that everyone knew what they were doing. You cant have it both ways. As I have said a number of times previously, there are a number of Brexit varieties available. Three years later we still don't know which one we will end up with. Leave voters that support a Common Market 2.0 solution, will be hostile to a no deal outcome.
As the result has not been decided, how could any leave voter claim that they knew what they were voting for?
Please knock yourself out and show me where I typed the bolded bit .
Secondly , you can twist the words of the article as much you like , but rational people will read it and form their own conclusions . You pretty much found your level when you decided to post a succession of crude , immature pe nis pictures , so why anyone would take anything you have to say as being considered is beyond me .
As I am sure you consider yourself a rational person, what are your conclusions?
This is my conclusion and it hasn't changed from yesterday :
" You pretty much found your level when you decided to post a succession of crude , immature pe nis pictures , so why anyone would take anything you have to say as being considered is beyond me ."
Because @Haysie is providing a whole load of detail as to how your position has changed, and you are now deriding people who held your opinion.
You cannot argue on the facts, so you resort to smear tactics alone.
Having said all that, I DID think the particular posts were inappropriate. However, you trying to use that to deflect from the fact that you are being absolutely mullered is not going to work.
With regard to the defaced Brexit Party leaflets, I honestly didn't think too much about them. I just assumed that as they were published in a national newspaper, which may be purchased by children, they were ok to post. However I will happily apologise to anyone that was offended by them.
If we follow that logic, we could of vote every 15 minutes just to check the will of the people is still the will of the people.
Bit of a difference between 15 mins and 3 years mumsie. If you can honestly tell me that the info the people had in 2016 and now is the same then I wouldnt argue with you.
This from the Guardian , addresses it more eloquently than my tired mind will allow tonight :
For the House of Commons to endorse a second referendum, it would have to repeal past Brexit legislation in a manner that flouts the position adopted by the main parties in the last general election. Were this to happen, it would tear up established relations between executive and legislature, pitting popular and parliamentary sovereignty against one another. Parliament would in effect be seeking, in a Brechtian fashion, to dissolve “the people” and put another in place that will vote differently in a second referendum. Why should it not be possible to change one’s mind in a democracy? Of course it should be, but calls for a second referendum have very little to do with a changing of minds and more to do with a hardening of views. What lies behind the call for another vote is a belief that those who voted to leave in June 2016 should change their minds. The fact that its supporters call it “the people’s vote”, as if the first vote wasn’t, lets the cat out of the bag. Driving the desire to have a second vote is a firm belief that the first one was an illegitimate act, a subversion of democratic politics that saw a leave victory achieved through a mix of lies and misconceptions. This is what the second referendum campaigners hang their arguments on, so it merits some scrutiny. At the heart of it is an epistemic claim: people did not understand what was at stake and now that they do, we should give them a chance to vote differently. Instead of basing our political system on two fundamental principles – equal political rights (for those over 18) and majority rule – this claim introduces a new element, knowledge. It presumes that people who voted leave first time around were ignorant or misguided, or both. It also suggests that one’s right to act politically rests in part upon one’s ability to be informed about the issues in question.
Who can determine whether people are well enough informed to allow a result to pass? Do advocates of this kind of knowledge-based democracy accept that access to knowledge is fundamentally shaped by social and economic power? Thus organised, we divide our political world into those who know and those who do not. Or, more truthfully, between those who are sure that they know and those who are not so sure. This is a subjective difference, requiring an arbiter to draw the line. As things stand, the only arbiters at present are MPs themselves, who we know are made up predominantly of remainers. Would we instead create an independent body, made up of the great and the good, empowered to decide on the cognitive capacities of voters? I imagine not, but the elitism underpinning arguments for a second referendum couldn’t be clearer. A second referendum would be a blow to the heart of our parliamentary democracy. It would introduce the principle – elitist to the core – that the legitimacy of a political decision rests upon a judgment about the knowledge that informed it. And it would rely on a dirty plebiscitarianism as a way out of the political impasse in Westminster. Those arguing for a second referendum should be careful what they wish for. Chaos is rarely a harbinger of good outcomes
I am confused by the fact that you have posted this. You stated very clearly, much earlier in this thread that the misleading claims made in the referendum campaign, left you unable to vote. Now you post an article claiming that everyone knew what they were doing. You cant have it both ways. As I have said a number of times previously, there are a number of Brexit varieties available. Three years later we still don't know which one we will end up with. Leave voters that support a Common Market 2.0 solution, will be hostile to a no deal outcome.
As the result has not been decided, how could any leave voter claim that they knew what they were voting for?
Please knock yourself out and show me where I typed the bolded bit .
Secondly , you can twist the words of the article as much you like , but rational people will read it and form their own conclusions . You pretty much found your level when you decided to post a succession of crude , immature pe nis pictures , so why anyone would take anything you have to say as being considered is beyond me .
As I am sure you consider yourself a rational person, what are your conclusions?
This is my conclusion and it hasn't changed from yesterday :
" You pretty much found your level when you decided to post a succession of crude , immature pe nis pictures , so why anyone would take anything you have to say as being considered is beyond me ."
Because @Haysie is providing a whole load of detail as to how your position has changed, and you are now deriding people who held your opinion.
You cannot argue on the facts, so you resort to smear tactics alone.
Having said all that, I DID think the particular posts were inappropriate. However, you trying to use that to deflect from the fact that you are being absolutely mullered is not going to work.
With regard to the defaced Brexit Party leaflets, I honestly didn't think too much about them. I just assumed that as they were published in a national newspaper, which may be purchased by children, they were ok to post. However I will happily apologise to anyone that was offended by them.
Is this now know as 'The Danny Baker Defence'...
That's a whole topic in itself, & there'a a thread about it here;
With regard to the defaced Brexit Party leaflets, I honestly didn't think too much about them. I just assumed that as they were published in a national newspaper, which may be purchased by children, they were ok to post. However I will happily apologise to anyone that was offended by them.
Is this now known as 'The Danny Baker Defence'...
As with anything on a forum, it will come down to opinions.
I must admit that I thought they were quite funny, but I particularly dislike Nigel Farage, which may well colour my opinion.
This may also be true of those that are fans of his, where they may exaggerate the offensive nature of them.
It is very unusual for anything that is seen as being truly offensive to be published in a national newspaper.
The leaflets were defaced with a bit of swearing, and a crude drawing of a pe nis attached to Nigel Farages forehead.
I see worse swearing in the chatbox every day, and the type of crude drawings are available in every school, and public toilet, in addition to many publicly displayed posters everywhere.
The posts obviously upset one person who has commented, and EssexPhil thought they were offensive.
I have apologised, and immediately deleted the offending articles.
Brexit: France warns UK it will not accept 'repeated' Article 50 delays after 31 October
France has warned that it will not accept “repeated” extensions of the Brexit deadline beyond 31 October, amid deadlock in the UK over the deal negotiated by Theresa May. “We must not get sucked into repeated extensions, that’s for sure,” a French presidential adviser said on Friday. The advisor told the Reuters news agency: “Our message is clear: a solution must have been found by October 31.”
Donald Tusk: chance of Brexit being cancelled could be 30%
The chances of the UK staying in the EU are as high as 30% as the country would be likely to reject Brexit in a second referendum, the president of the European council, Donald Tusk, has said. The bloc’s most senior official claimed the British public had only truly debated Brexit after the 2016 referendum and there was significant reason to believe the leave vote could be reversed. Describing the decision by the former British prime minister, David Cameron, to call the vote as a political miscalculation, Tusk said he would expect a different result in a vote today given what had been learned about the consequences of leaving.
If we follow that logic, we could of vote every 15 minutes just to check the will of the people is still the will of the people.
Bit of a difference between 15 mins and 3 years mumsie. If you can honestly tell me that the info the people had in 2016 and now is the same then I wouldnt argue with you.
This from the Guardian , addresses it more eloquently than my tired mind will allow tonight :
For the House of Commons to endorse a second referendum, it would have to repeal past Brexit legislation in a manner that flouts the position adopted by the main parties in the last general election. Were this to happen, it would tear up established relations between executive and legislature, pitting popular and parliamentary sovereignty against one another. Parliament would in effect be seeking, in a Brechtian fashion, to dissolve “the people” and put another in place that will vote differently in a second referendum. Why should it not be possible to change one’s mind in a democracy? Of course it should be, but calls for a second referendum have very little to do with a changing of minds and more to do with a hardening of views. What lies behind the call for another vote is a belief that those who voted to leave in June 2016 should change their minds. The fact that its supporters call it “the people’s vote”, as if the first vote wasn’t, lets the cat out of the bag. Driving the desire to have a second vote is a firm belief that the first one was an illegitimate act, a subversion of democratic politics that saw a leave victory achieved through a mix of lies and misconceptions. This is what the second referendum campaigners hang their arguments on, so it merits some scrutiny. At the heart of it is an epistemic claim: people did not understand what was at stake and now that they do, we should give them a chance to vote differently. Instead of basing our political system on two fundamental principles – equal political rights (for those over 18) and majority rule – this claim introduces a new element, knowledge. It presumes that people who voted leave first time around were ignorant or misguided, or both. It also suggests that one’s right to act politically rests in part upon one’s ability to be informed about the issues in question.
Who can determine whether people are well enough informed to allow a result to pass? Do advocates of this kind of knowledge-based democracy accept that access to knowledge is fundamentally shaped by social and economic power? Thus organised, we divide our political world into those who know and those who do not. Or, more truthfully, between those who are sure that they know and those who are not so sure. This is a subjective difference, requiring an arbiter to draw the line. As things stand, the only arbiters at present are MPs themselves, who we know are made up predominantly of remainers. Would we instead create an independent body, made up of the great and the good, empowered to decide on the cognitive capacities of voters? I imagine not, but the elitism underpinning arguments for a second referendum couldn’t be clearer. A second referendum would be a blow to the heart of our parliamentary democracy. It would introduce the principle – elitist to the core – that the legitimacy of a political decision rests upon a judgment about the knowledge that informed it. And it would rely on a dirty plebiscitarianism as a way out of the political impasse in Westminster. Those arguing for a second referendum should be careful what they wish for. Chaos is rarely a harbinger of good outcomes
I am confused by the fact that you have posted this. You stated very clearly, much earlier in this thread that the misleading claims made in the referendum campaign, left you unable to vote. Now you post an article claiming that everyone knew what they were doing. You cant have it both ways. As I have said a number of times previously, there are a number of Brexit varieties available. Three years later we still don't know which one we will end up with. Leave voters that support a Common Market 2.0 solution, will be hostile to a no deal outcome.
As the result has not been decided, how could any leave voter claim that they knew what they were voting for?
Please knock yourself out and show me where I typed the bolded bit .
Secondly , you can twist the words of the article as much you like , but rational people will read it and form their own conclusions . You pretty much found your level when you decided to post a succession of crude , immature pe nis pictures , so why anyone would take anything you have to say as being considered is beyond me .
As I am sure you consider yourself a rational person, what are your conclusions?
This is my conclusion and it hasn't changed from yesterday :
" You pretty much found your level when you decided to post a succession of crude , immature pe nis pictures , so why anyone would take anything you have to say as being considered is beyond me ."
Because @Haysie is providing a whole load of detail as to how your position has changed, and you are now deriding people who held your opinion.
You cannot argue on the facts, so you resort to smear tactics alone.
Having said all that, I DID think the particular posts were inappropriate. However, you trying to use that to deflect from the fact that you are being absolutely mullered is not going to work.
I'm more than capable of arguing on this subject , I choose not to with certain individuals such as Haysie . No smear tactics from me at all , nor will you find any inappropriate vulgar posts from me either .
If we follow that logic, we could of vote every 15 minutes just to check the will of the people is still the will of the people.
Bit of a difference between 15 mins and 3 years mumsie. If you can honestly tell me that the info the people had in 2016 and now is the same then I wouldnt argue with you.
This from the Guardian , addresses it more eloquently than my tired mind will allow tonight :
For the House of Commons to endorse a second referendum, it would have to repeal past Brexit legislation in a manner that flouts the position adopted by the main parties in the last general election. Were this to happen, it would tear up established relations between executive and legislature, pitting popular and parliamentary sovereignty against one another. Parliament would in effect be seeking, in a Brechtian fashion, to dissolve “the people” and put another in place that will vote differently in a second referendum. Why should it not be possible to change one’s mind in a democracy? Of course it should be, but calls for a second referendum have very little to do with a changing of minds and more to do with a hardening of views. What lies behind the call for another vote is a belief that those who voted to leave in June 2016 should change their minds. The fact that its supporters call it “the people’s vote”, as if the first vote wasn’t, lets the cat out of the bag. Driving the desire to have a second vote is a firm belief that the first one was an illegitimate act, a subversion of democratic politics that saw a leave victory achieved through a mix of lies and misconceptions. This is what the second referendum campaigners hang their arguments on, so it merits some scrutiny. At the heart of it is an epistemic claim: people did not understand what was at stake and now that they do, we should give them a chance to vote differently. Instead of basing our political system on two fundamental principles – equal political rights (for those over 18) and majority rule – this claim introduces a new element, knowledge. It presumes that people who voted leave first time around were ignorant or misguided, or both. It also suggests that one’s right to act politically rests in part upon one’s ability to be informed about the issues in question.
Who can determine whether people are well enough informed to allow a result to pass? Do advocates of this kind of knowledge-based democracy accept that access to knowledge is fundamentally shaped by social and economic power? Thus organised, we divide our political world into those who know and those who do not. Or, more truthfully, between those who are sure that they know and those who are not so sure. This is a subjective difference, requiring an arbiter to draw the line. As things stand, the only arbiters at present are MPs themselves, who we know are made up predominantly of remainers. Would we instead create an independent body, made up of the great and the good, empowered to decide on the cognitive capacities of voters? I imagine not, but the elitism underpinning arguments for a second referendum couldn’t be clearer. A second referendum would be a blow to the heart of our parliamentary democracy. It would introduce the principle – elitist to the core – that the legitimacy of a political decision rests upon a judgment about the knowledge that informed it. And it would rely on a dirty plebiscitarianism as a way out of the political impasse in Westminster. Those arguing for a second referendum should be careful what they wish for. Chaos is rarely a harbinger of good outcomes
I am confused by the fact that you have posted this. You stated very clearly, much earlier in this thread that the misleading claims made in the referendum campaign, left you unable to vote. Now you post an article claiming that everyone knew what they were doing. You cant have it both ways. As I have said a number of times previously, there are a number of Brexit varieties available. Three years later we still don't know which one we will end up with. Leave voters that support a Common Market 2.0 solution, will be hostile to a no deal outcome.
As the result has not been decided, how could any leave voter claim that they knew what they were voting for?
Please knock yourself out and show me where I typed the bolded bit .
Secondly , you can twist the words of the article as much you like , but rational people will read it and form their own conclusions . You pretty much found your level when you decided to post a succession of crude , immature pe nis pictures , so why anyone would take anything you have to say as being considered is beyond me .
As I am sure you consider yourself a rational person, what are your conclusions?
This is my conclusion and it hasn't changed from yesterday :
" You pretty much found your level when you decided to post a succession of crude , immature pe nis pictures , so why anyone would take anything you have to say as being considered is beyond me ."
Because @Haysie is providing a whole load of detail as to how your position has changed, and you are now deriding people who held your opinion.
You cannot argue on the facts, so you resort to smear tactics alone.
Having said all that, I DID think the particular posts were inappropriate. However, you trying to use that to deflect from the fact that you are being absolutely mullered is not going to work.
I'm more than capable of arguing on this subject , I choose not to with certain individuals such as Haysie . No smear tactics from me at all , nor will you find any inappropriate vulgar posts from me either .
Ah. The good old "nerdy, nerdy, custard" defence
The actual evidence of the arguing, points to the contrary.
Comments
Yet another uninformed silly post.
The results of the EU Elections will be published.
The number of votes cast for each party will be calculated.
How do you calculate from the votes cast, in which way the tide of public opinion is moving?
Some of the parties are clearly in favour of one side or the other.
The Brexit Party is clearly in favour of leaving.
The Lib Dems, SNP, Greens, Change UK, Plaid Cymru, etc, are clearly in favour of remaining.
Yet any votes cast for the Tories, or Labour, could be in favour of either side.
What about the 10million of the electorate that didn't vote in the referendum.
How do you factor them in?
How many of them will vote?
How can you tell who they are, or whether they have voted?
Perhaps you could explain how you intend to judge this tide of public opinion?
You should probably stay away from guessing , I actually refrained from voting simply because whatever anyone said from either side , I wasn't sure how it would affect us . Please feel free to carry on with your assumptions !
Umm, where have I suggested that ?. I think you need to brush up on your reading skills . I have already confirmed that I didn't vote , because it was and still is impossible to say whether in the years to come , brexit will be a good or bad thing for our country .
You are arrogant , because you are not prepared to hear opposing viewpoints to yours , without " shouting " them down and dismissing them as nonsense . I'm quite prepared to listen to both sides of the argument for Brexit , that is not evident on this thread and isn't likely to be !
The reason I didnt vote , was simply because I couldn't be sure of making the right decision , based on the arguments put forward from both sides ..i'd say that was the responsible thing to do !
I would suggest that you are slightly contradicting yourself. Perhaps you would like to clarify , are you happy for people to have had the vote regardless of spin , misinformation and lies from BOTH sides or do you back up the highlighted comment of yours at the top ?
Perfectly calm here , and i would suggest in future if you are genuinely asking a question , put a question mark after it ! If it is a question , I never said I didn't have views on Brexit , just that it is way too complicated an issue with too many variables to express a view and substantiate it . For those reasons , I would decline a 2nd vote as well ( not that imo that will ever happen anyway ).
You can't stand by both of your statements , it's contradictory ! Completely laughable .
As far as not having any sympathy with people exercising their democratic right to abstain from voting , for **** good reasons is bizarre . No one knew exactly what sort of deal was going to be brokered , it's akin to asking someone to form an opinion on the basis that several options are going to happen , but we can't guarantee which one .
I didn't give an explanation of democratic rights , I merely stated that it is a democratic right to choose not to vote . 72 % of the U.K. also followed suit .
Semantics regarding the fact that you weren't asked to specify which deal you got ..people were invited to vote , not knowing exactly what was going to be on the table , thats the cold hard truth of the matter .
As for the other part , once again , you are trying your level best to put words in my mouth ( seems to be your m.o. ) and failing .
If the vote had been in favour of no deal , you wouldn't even be saying the referendum shouldn't have been offered .
I will reply to this later, it makes absolutely no sense and supports my last post.
That was me not paying attention to what I was typing as opposed to anything else ..but well done for picking it up.
When someone makes the same point over and over like i have , and still someone wants to question its validity , either a) they are dense or b) just being argumentative for the sake of it ..choose your option .... ..the question was asked and different arguments and outcomes were put forward to enable voters to make an informed decision . The arguments and misrepresentation from BOTH sides made it impossible for me to make my mind up .
You are , and perhaps you would like to tell me , exactly how democratic a country we would have if we forced our people to vote , even if they weren't really sure what they were voting for , and how that would impact on life changing moments like the brexit vote . If we had compulsory voting , the leave vote would have been higher .
What I meant to type was " remain" .....if the vote had been remain , you wouldn't even be saying the referendum shouldn't be offered .
Makes no sense
If anyone who voted leave , knew at the time what sort of deal Theresa may was going to be offered and the realistic chance of there being a no deal , would they still have voted leave ? Obviously we won't get much if any of a response on here , because a) haysies attitude has frightened off the leave brigade from making any arguments and b) This is a poker forum , with quite a limited user base and not a political forum .
You mean invalid , because I didn't vote remain like you ? Invalid because I wasn't prepared to make a decision based on lies /misrepresentation and a lack of information ?
HAYSIE said:
» show previous quotes
Another blunder. This refers to not voting in a General Election, rather than a referendum, where every vote counts.
I would like to say nice try, but it wasn't really.
For instance, Jeremy Paxman told the Radio Times, “the person who chooses not to vote – cannot even be bothered to write ‘none of the above’ on a ballot paper – disqualifies himself from passing any comment at all.”
Not a blunder at all .
It highlights not voting as a general principle whether its a general election or a referendum , makes no difference . Paxman devotee , explains a lot !
dobiesdraw said:
» show previous quotes
Not a blunder at all .
It highlights not voting as a general principle whether its a general election or a referendum , makes no difference . Paxman devotee , explains a lot !
Have you even read it.
The writer is defending the right not to vote, using an example of a politician that has a substantial majority, and saying that under these circumstances one vote would make no difference. Ignoring the constituencies where very, very small majorities exist.
I am not saying I agree with this because there are many cases of very large majorities being overturned.
In a referendum every vote counts.
It is impossible to not see the difference.
The Paxman quote was in the article, and you posted it.
It's an extremely valid reason to not vote , if you can't make up your mind which is the right thing to do . Do you think people should vote if they are not clear in their own minds about the ramifications of voting a particular way ?
Not the case at all , you didn't have to be a rocket scientist pre brexit vote , to realise that if you voted leave , then you couldn't be sure what the exact deal was going to be , as if you voted remain , what the potential benefits to the country might be long term .
And therein lies one of the main issues , why it was difficult to cast an informed vote .
Full of questions , but don't want to answer any !
In the other, Dobiesdraw, who has better things to do than give her own opinions, doesn't appear to be sure, but is sure that Haysie is wrong. Our forum has its very own Jeremy Corbyn....
Everyone was expected to vote in the referendum using the knowledge that they had at the time.
The reason that there is an outcry from some quarters now, is because anyone that has paid attention to what has happened since, has a much greater knowledge now.
Mind numbingly stupid example . It was the responsibilty of politicians to present realistic scenarios and accurately represent consequences to the country pre vote . They failed to do that . If you are saying that wasn't possible , then the referendum should never have been offered up.
Totally disagree ...it would be and is irresponsible to vote uninformed about the consequences .
Your argument clearly points to the fact that nobody should have voted to leave?
" You pretty much found your level when you decided to post a succession of crude , immature pe nis pictures , so why anyone would take anything you have to say as being considered is beyond me ."
You cannot argue on the facts, so you resort to smear tactics alone.
Having said all that, I DID think the particular posts were inappropriate. However, you trying to use that to deflect from the fact that you are being absolutely mullered is not going to work.
Most people will see through your attempts at deflection.
No smear tactics from me at all , nor will you find any inappropriate vulgar posts from me either .
I just assumed that as they were published in a national newspaper, which may be purchased by children, they were ok to post.
However I will happily apologise to anyone that was offended by them.
OK.
I'm going to delete the links/photos in question.
Now can we get back to debating the topics in hand, instead of being mean to each other please?
TIA.
OK, now let's move on please.
That's a whole topic in itself, & there'a a thread about it here;
https://community.skypoker.com/discussion/175601/oh-danny-what-have-you-done#latest
I just assumed that as they were published in a national newspaper, which may be purchased by children, they were ok to post.
However I will happily apologise to anyone that was offended by them.
Is this now known as 'The Danny Baker Defence'...
As with anything on a forum, it will come down to opinions.
I must admit that I thought they were quite funny, but I particularly dislike Nigel Farage, which may well colour my opinion.
This may also be true of those that are fans of his, where they may exaggerate the offensive nature of them.
It is very unusual for anything that is seen as being truly offensive to be published in a national newspaper.
The leaflets were defaced with a bit of swearing, and a crude drawing of a pe nis attached to Nigel Farages forehead.
I see worse swearing in the chatbox every day, and the type of crude drawings are available in every school, and public toilet, in addition to many publicly displayed posters everywhere.
The posts obviously upset one person who has commented, and EssexPhil thought they were offensive.
I have apologised, and immediately deleted the offending articles.
France has warned that it will not accept “repeated” extensions of the Brexit deadline beyond 31 October, amid deadlock in the UK over the deal negotiated by Theresa May.
“We must not get sucked into repeated extensions, that’s for sure,” a French presidential adviser said on Friday.
The advisor told the Reuters news agency: “Our message is clear: a solution must have been found by October 31.”
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/brexit/brexit-france-warns-uk-it-will-not-accept-repeated-article-50-delays-after-31-october/ar-AABaY5B?ocid=spartandhp
The chances of the UK staying in the EU are as high as 30% as the country would be likely to reject Brexit in a second referendum, the president of the European council, Donald Tusk, has said.
The bloc’s most senior official claimed the British public had only truly debated Brexit after the 2016 referendum and there was significant reason to believe the leave vote could be reversed.
Describing the decision by the former British prime minister, David Cameron, to call the vote as a political miscalculation, Tusk said he would expect a different result in a vote today given what had been learned about the consequences of leaving.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/donald-tusk-chance-of-brexit-being-cancelled-could-be-30percent/ar-AABbc6t?ocid=spartandhp